TimTheToolMan says:21 October 2010 at 19:41If the models were to be shown to be specifically deficient in some area and need significant rework what impact would you see that having on the thousands of papers that have relied on them to this point and of climate science in general?

[Response: And if the moon were made of green cheese, what impact would that have on space science in general and on the astronauts who walked on it? Please don't play games. - gavin]

TimTheToolMan says:21 October 2010 at 20:52Gavin says "And if the moon were made of green cheese, what impact would that have on space science in general and on the astronauts who walked on it? Please don't play games. – gavin"Whether the recent discovery of a possible deficiency in the models turns out to be significant or not, this is a legitimate question to be asked and answered. Think of it as disaster mitigation needed for science. We do it for business, I don't see why science should be exempt when science has tied itself more closely with results based funding than ever.

[Response: Coyly hinting at some super-secret deficiency you think you've discovered or read about, but not actually saying what it is, is just playing games. If you want to talk about something specific, do so. - gavin]

TimTheToolMan says:21 October 2010 at 23:46Gavin says "If you want to talk about something specific, do so. – gavin"It looks like me being specific was just moderated into oblivion. Sooner or later we're likely going to have to deal with the point I raised and I think it would be better to do it in a planned controlled fashion rather than in damage control.

[Response: Spare us. Models are used because they work, not because they are some pure deified output of our reasoning. No supposed deficiency takes away from the already demonstrated skill - how could it? Can they be better? Sure, but your imaginings of some huge looming crisis is simply fantasy. - gavin]

TimTheToolMan says:22 October 2010 at 1:34Gavin says – "Can they be better? Sure, but your imaginings of some huge looming crisis is simply fantasy. – gavin"This is why I've explicitely tried to dissassociate this discussion from any work on models.So am I to assume that you dont think it would be a worthwhile discussion because you believe that the models will always be "valid" no matter what is discovered about them or the earth's climate processes in the future?And consequently any papers that use today's models and come to conclusions based on the model's results are equally going to be always valid into the future?

[Response: That is a ridiculous false dilemma, implying that if I think that models have been skillful, they therefore must be perfect and, presumably, incapable of improvement. What is wrong with 'yes, models have been shown to be skillful, and yes, they can be improved, and will be in the future'? Obviously, this means that some results from today might be changed, but as I stated, where models have already shown skill, that doesn't go away. And where models support conclusions from data, that isn't going away either. So climate sensitivity is still around 3 deg C. Sorry. - gavin]

"I guess my interaction with Makarieva "counts" as interacting with a skeptic, since I encountered her on a skeptical blog and she is challenging the status quo. If this is the kind of thing that I shouldn't be doing according to the IPCC "in crowd" (see here), then the climate field is in a great deal of trouble."

"Almost a year has passed since the release of the East Anglia emails. And despite all that has happened, there are some repeated indications that the climate science community just doesn't get it. One example can be found in Michael Lemonick's apologia delivered in response to criticisms from climate scientists aghast that he would give the "crank" Judy Curry a forum in Scientific American. Curry is a professor at Georgia Tech, and a widely published and well-respected atmospheric scientist (at least in most circles)."

I'm having another "Alice down the rabbit hole" moment, in response to the Scientific American article, the explication of the article by its author Michael Lemonick, Scientific American's survey on whether I am a dupe or a peacemaker, and the numerous discussions in blogosphere.

"Roger, Re my stirring experience of jousting with Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch. My sympathy to you and anyone else who has to deal with them. They're gravediggers of science. Nature will soon publish my riposte and, I think, a disclaimer of any ties to me by the Marshall Institute. Below, my further exchanges with the low-life trio.

Best regards, Dan"

Her er brev til de tre:

Dear Professors Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf,

Your correspondence concerning my review of Roger Pielke's book "Climate Fix" has provided me with a deeper understanding of the widespread public skepticism toward climate science. In your hands, apple pie and motherhood would come under public suspicion. Have you considered taking a remedial reading course? Can you comprehend the difference between a book reviewer's own beliefs and the reviewer's presentation of the beliefs expressed by the author of the book under review? Apparently not. Furthermore, your insinuation of an undisclosed relationship between me and a conservative think tank is preposterous. In 2006, I participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Marshall Institute---as I have done with numerous other organizations, including the Brookings Institution, RAND, AAAS, and various academic societies and universities. Common practice for journalists. Nor did I, as you allege, write a report, or anything, for the Marshall Institute. The panel's words were transcribed and published by the Institute. I wrote nothing for them. You guys are the devil's gift to the Tea Party and other climate-change wackos.